this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
226 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

59207 readers
2520 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
226
US Record Labels Sue AI Music Generators Suno and Udio for Copyright Infringement (www.wired.com)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The music industry has officially declared war on Suno and Udio, two of the most prominent AI music generators. A group of music labels including Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Group has filed lawsuits in US federal court on Monday morning alleging copyright infringement on a “massive scale.”

The plaintiffs seek damages up to $150,000 per work infringed. The lawsuit against Suno is filed in Massachusetts, while the case against Udio’s parent company Uncharted Inc. was filed in New York. Suno and Udio did not immediately respond to a request to comment.

“Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all,” Recording Industry Association of America chair and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a press release.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (10 children)

Music copyright is such a shitshow. It doesn't surprise that they would try this.

Edit: I just heard the generated songs that are part of the lawsuit. They're pretty fucked if this is true,

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Links maybe?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ. Have people never heard of covers? Every song here is in some way or another akin to a published cover of another song. Pretty bad ones at that. Obviously if it were matching the songs one for one, then it would be considered copywrite enforceable but realistically these would be more along the lines of copywrite abuse. The music labels would absolutely love for this precedent to be set so that anything even that remotely resembles anything ever made will allow them to own new independent artists within established genres.

The cases

Here is a list of cases that set precedent. The thing that connects them all and makes them relevant is that the defendant was either successful, made a lot of money, was very popular or it was the label attacking a artist for sounding like themself after leaving the band. See John Fogerty v. John Fogerty

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Actually technically covers require royalties, whether they're on a CD, or performed at someplace seedy.

They're not the time honored tradition you think they are.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)